Come to the Table! — Who, Me?

I read Jamie Howison’s new book, Come to the Table on the weekend — or part of the weekend, as it’s only 76 pages. It actually began as a paper exploring the basis for the practice of “open table” at St. Benedict’s Table. Open table refers to the practice of serving communion to people who present themselves to receive the elements, regardless whether or not they have been baptized. Now, this is not a very Anglican thing to do, since strictly speaking, traditionally those who expect to receive communion should have been baptized and confirmed. None of this is really an issue in evangelical circles, but in others I understand it’s pretty much grounds for scandal. Indeed, “from my evangelical days, baptism is not viewed as inherently for regeneration,” so the question seems a little farfetched to some, but with a bit of thought to the subject, one realizes that the communion table has actually been the dividing line between many a denomination or church group.

The phrases in quotations above are lifted from page 18, where they landed after being lifted from an email I sent to Jamie as he was beginning the research phase of the project and soliciting reflections from the community at St. Ben’s. Quotations from these reflections are sprinkled throughout the study, either uncredited or sourced to initials only. Not to spoil the ending, but the study finds no compelling prohibition against serving the elements to unbaptized communicants, which is weighed against the inclusive posture that Jesus adopts in those few meals which he hosts in the gospels and in the many he attends. Along the road, the study outlines the historic arguments on both sides of this debate and interweaves some of the history and experience of St. Benedict’s Table in this area.

Besides the topic at hand, the reader is rewarded with a few bonus subjects along the way, including perspective on the “Emergent” label (St. Ben’s is considered an emerging church, but eschews the label) and a good brief summary of postmodernism. Clearly rooted in an Anglican milieu, references to various editions of the Book of Common Prayer are among the many sources cited and footnoted as evidence of the thorough research undergirding the study. Those in an Anglican or similar context where this question exists would do well to consider this short volume. Despite its intention to address itself to an Anglican situation, the study will be of value to others as well in the exploration of some of the theology surrounding who should partake of communion and under what circumstances. Here I refer specifically to the common admonitions, injunctions, and warnings that communion must not be taken in an unworthy manner — without “discerning the body.” No study would be complete without considering these questions, and the perspective offered in the study delivers in this as well, and those whose traditions have seen these injunctions contribute to making communion “unnecessarily laborious,” a description used in the foreword by singer/songwriter Steve Bell.

I have previously written about some of the shifts in my own views on communion (doing away with the idea that kids need to “fully understand” it in order to partake), which I suppose have come along quite a way now. Of late, I have found myself asking a new question, namely, would communion be appropriate for seekers? Non-Christians, proto-Christians, whatever… but seekers who are open to meeting God at the table. If one considers the Table as an open invitation to meet with Christ in the most fitting place imaginable, it begins to make sense… set into the context of Jesus’ openness and welcoming stance toward the sinners and socially undesirable of his day, I wonder what line should be drawn to exclude participants who have a desire for the Table? This question is not fully answered in my mind, but I think could bear some good discussion. What are the views or experience of others in this regard? Does anyone offer a fully open table, and have reasoning and experiences to share from that perspective? Anyone wishing to argue against an open table in this or some other degree? Tawk amongst yourselves…

3 Comments

Your notion of a “fully open” table is in fact a reality in most churches that practice open communion, I would suggest. I have heard from many people (and read) that it was the act of taking communion that inspired them to become Christian. Many of those who come to an open table are in fact seekers, and nobody can stop them experiencing the power of this ritual, whatever it might mean to them.
So yes, I would advocate a fully open table, one at which all were invited. I am reminded of the fact that Daniel Berrigan shared the sacrament with Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, to the horror of many on both sides of the divide. Should be more of it!
And is there anything uglier, or less Christian, than the stern lecture one hears at a Baptist church before communion is served – one would think it was only the ungracious, the dull and the exclusive who were allowed at Christ’s table.

I brought this up as a possibility within my fellowship last year. I’m not sure it was received too well, but it certainly makes sense to me for the following reasons:

– When Jesus did all he could to spend time eating and drinking with sinners, does it make sense to remember him by a process that promotes exclusion?

– In the NT when communion was celebrated, it wasn’t so much as a ritual but an entire meal. When everybody met together, no doubt some of them bringing some curious friends along (since the whole thing was such a novelty at the time), would it make sense that they wouldn’t share in the meal?

– When Paul condemned people for eating and drinking in an unworthy manner it was because they were doing it in an attitude of greed and selfishness rather than unity as they should be. Since somebody who is a seeker of Christ would be doing it specifically to seek out more of him they wouldn’t fall into this category anyway – they would likely do it with more respect than we sometimes do ourselves. Condemnation in the NT is always because of the attitude of the heart, not where we are on the journey.

– If we accept that salvation is a journey rather than a momentary event, who is to say where that journey makes one ‘turn into’ a Christian? Is the belief that God is real enough? If so, most people who are seeking and want to be part of communion would already have come at least partially to that conclusion.

– If we concede that there is no actual transubstantiation taking place (as most non-Catholics do), why does it matter? It really is just bread and wine or juice after all. As I said above, it’s the attitude that matters, not the emblems.

– There is nothing I can find in the Bible to back up the idea that seekers of Christ should be exempt from participating.

I’m reminded of my Old Order Amish days. Communion was done 2 times a year. Two weeks prior to communion Sunday was “Ordnance Sunday;” a 3 hour service where the regulations of the church were all reviewed (and sometimes modified,) and those members not deemed in compliance were ‘examined’ and set aside. Thank God for deliverance!

I’m strongly in favor of open communion now…. but…

I was once in a place of business and saw a man who was especially noteworthy because of his extremely vulgar mouth. A short time later I attended a mass and watched in horror as that same man shuffled to the front where the priest laid “The Body of Christ” on that very blasphemous tongue. Something about that did not seem right either.